Case: Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches v. Department of Maryland State Police

1:98-cv-01098 | U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Filed Date: April 10, 1998

Closed Date: 2008

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On April 10, 1998, the Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches ("NAACP") and eighteen individuals filed this §1983 class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District Maryland. The plaintiffs sued the Maryland State Police (MSP) and twenty-four of its officers alleging racial profiling of minority motorists on Interstate 95 in Maryland. plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys' fees.In June 1998, an amended complaint was filed and the case was…

On April 10, 1998, the Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches ("NAACP") and eighteen individuals filed this §1983 class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District Maryland. The plaintiffs sued the Maryland State Police (MSP) and twenty-four of its officers alleging racial profiling of minority motorists on Interstate 95 in Maryland. plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys' fees.

In June 1998, an amended complaint was filed and the case was consolidated with the related case Wilkins v. Maryland State Police, Civil Case No. CCB-93-468 for discovery purposes. (See PN-MD-0003 of this collection for a summary of that case.) The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on October 8, 1998. The defendants responded by moving to dismiss and/or for summary judgment.

On September 30, 1999, the District Court (Judge Catherine C. Blake) granted the defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment as to the plaintiffs' interstate travel claim. The District Court also dismissed the plaintiffs' claims that were based on a stop that occurred before April 10, 1995. The motion was otherwise denied. 72 F.Supp.2d 560, 569 (D.Md.1999).

On February 22, 2001, the District Court denied without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, pending further discovery. Thereafter, the parties engaged in settlement discussions and reached an agreement in principle in March 2002 on a partial settlement.

On April 22, 2003 the parties entered into a Consent Decree, which formally resolved their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. The Consent Decree also served to resolve the issues in the related case Wilkins v. Maryland State Police, (PN-MD-0003). The District Court entered the Consent Decree and approved the selection of Mr. Eli Silverman to serve as the MSP consultant under the decree. The settlement did not dispose of the individual plaintiffs' damage claims, nor did it bar them from renewing their motion for class action certification on damages.

On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs advised the court that they were abandoning their class action and proceeding only on the individual damage claims. On April 15, 2004, plaintiffs moved to file a third amended complaint to add eighteen additional plaintiffs. The District Court denied the motion on statute of limitations grounds. The eighteen would-be plaintiffs filed a separate motion to reconsider but that was denied. The plaintiffs appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Bridges v. Maryland Dep't of State Police, 441 F.3d 197 (4th Cir. 2006).

The defendants moved for summary judgment on the remaining individual claims. On August 10, 2006, the court (Magistrate Judge James K. Bredar) granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss voluntarily all claims against fifteen defendants and certain claims against others. On September 29, 2006, Judge Bredar granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for summary judgment. Maryland Conf. of NAACP v. Maryland Dep't of State Police, 454 F.Supp.2d 339 (D.Md. 2006).

The remaining individual claims that survived summary judgment were still pending as of the date of this summary, with a status conference set for July 2007.

On October 3, 2007, Magistrate Judge James K. Bredar recused himself from the case. Two sons of the US Marshal for the District of Maryland remained as defendants in actions still to be tried in this case. All of the judges of the District of Maryland had a significant working relationship with the Marshal. As a result, the Chief Judge concluded that in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety, a judge from outside the district should be appointed to preside during the trial phase of the case. 2007 WL 2914913 (D. Md. Oct. 3, 2007).

On October 24, 2007, the case was transferred to Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.

On April 3, 2008, the remaining individual plaintiffs settled the case with the defendants with the exception of one matter, which is set forth in section 6.1 of the parties’ private settlement agreement. The defendants agreed to pay $300,000 in damages and attorneys fees to the plaintiffs. The MSP agreed to hire an independent consultant to review its accomplishment of the terms of the 2003 Consent Decree and report on those findings to the plaintiffs.

The remaining issue in dispute was whether copies of complaints filed against individual Maryland State Police troopers are subject to production under the 2003 Consent Decree and, if so, whether in full or redacted form. The parties agreed to submit the matter to the court. On October 15, 2008, Judge Stamp ordered the MSP to turn over redacted copies of the complaints to the plaintiffs and dismissed the case.

Summary Authors

Dan Dalton (1/15/2007)

Jessica Kincaid (2/13/2016)

Related Cases

Wilkins v. Maryland State Police, District of Maryland (1993)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4671455/parties/state-conference-v-md-state-police/


Judge(s)

Blake, Catherine C. (Maryland)

Grimm, Paul William (Maryland)

Niemeyer, Paul Victor (Maryland)

Stamp, Frederick Pfarr Jr. (West Virginia)

Williams, Karen J. (South Carolina)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Adams, Earl S. Jr. (District of Columbia)

Brown, C. Christopher (Maryland)

Caplis, Allison J. (Maryland)

Copeland, Charlton C. (Maryland)

Freeman, Andrew D. (Maryland)

Judge(s)

Blake, Catherine C. (Maryland)

Grimm, Paul William (Maryland)

Niemeyer, Paul Victor (Maryland)

Stamp, Frederick Pfarr Jr. (West Virginia)

Williams, Karen J. (South Carolina)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Adams, Earl S. Jr. (District of Columbia)

Brown, C. Christopher (Maryland)

Caplis, Allison J. (Maryland)

Copeland, Charlton C. (Maryland)

Freeman, Andrew D. (Maryland)

Goldsmith, Therese M. (Maryland)

Griffiths, Richard D. (Maryland)

Guy, Jonathan P. (District of Columbia)

Jaquette, Amy Collen (Washington)

Jeon, Deborah A. (Maryland)

Lallas, Peter Christopher (District of Columbia)

Mertens, William J. (District of Columbia)

Nazarian, Douglas R. M. (Maryland)

Oxenham, Ann M. (Maryland)

Price, Martin Alexander (District of Columbia)

Saudek, Mark Spencer (Maryland)

Schwalb, Brian Lawrence (District of Columbia)

Shuford, Reginald (New York)

Squillario, Jennifer Kathryn (Maryland)

Stanton, Allison Cohen (District of Columbia)

Stoughton, Corey (New York)

Sullivan, Dwight H. (Maryland)

Tapscott, Barbara Musfeldt (Iowa)

Vance, Virginia Trice (Virginia)

Wilkins, Robert Leon (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Bechtold, Elizabeth J. (Maryland)

Borinsky, Elizabeth Marzo (Maryland)

Bowen, Mark Holdsworh (Maryland)

Curran, John Joseph Jr. (Maryland)

Dove, Maureen Mullen (Maryland)

Laskaris, Ioannis Aristotelis (Maryland)

McCormick, Corlie Jr. (Maryland)

Moore, David Reid (Maryland)

Rivera, Elizabeth Bechtold (Maryland)

Sconion, Betty S. (Maryland)

Smith, Christopher Robert (Maryland)

Tomar, David Kent (Maryland)

Vandergrift, Emily Norine (Maryland)

Zacharopoulos, Demetrios T. (Maryland)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket (PACER)

Oct. 15, 2008 Docket
25

Second Amended Complaint and Jury Demand

Oct. 8, 1998 Complaint
42

Memorandum

72 F.Supp.2d 560

Sept. 30, 1999 Order/Opinion
122-1

Consent Decree

April 22, 2003 Settlement Agreement
75

Letter Order

July 30, 2003 Order/Opinion
77

Plaintiff Structure Proposal

Aug. 4, 2003 Pleading / Motion / Brief
165

Third Revised Complaint and Jury Demand

Jan. 13, 2005 Complaint
265

Memorandum and Order Addressing Defendants' Motion Summary Judgment

454 F.Supp.2d 339

March 20, 2006 Order/Opinion
264

Order

Aug. 9, 2006 Order/Opinion
347-2

Settlement Agreement

April 3, 2008 Settlement Agreement

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4671455/state-conference-v-md-state-police/

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
265

MEMORANDUM Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 9/29/06. (cag, Deputy Clerk)

Sept. 29, 2006 RECAP

State / Territory: Maryland

Case Type(s):

Policing

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 10, 1998

Closing Date: 2008

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All innocent minority motorists who have been since 1/1/93 or who will be in the future, illegally stopped, detained, and/or searched by Maryland state troopers along Interstate 95, without just cause and based upon their race and/or national origin.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Non-profit NON-religious organization

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Maryland State Police, State

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Private Settlement Agreement

Amount Defendant Pays: 300,000

Order Duration: 2003 - 2008

Content of Injunction:

Discrimination Prohibition

Provide antidiscrimination training

Reporting

Required disclosure

Issues

General:

Racial profiling

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Race:

Black